Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

6 Epstoppel Representor – party making a representation which induces…

- - - - Giumelli v Giumelli
        
        relief should be a money sum up instead of acquisition of title to land
        
        unjust circumstances for other parties !!! all circumstances need to be looked at: would anyone else (outside of the arrangement)e.g. get a detriment, be treated unjustly,
        
        prima ferric + the Representor should be held unless there is unproporconate detriment
      - Sidhu v Van Dyke (2014)
        
        Why the court does not convey the house: 1. Because one person still lives on it. 2.
        
        She gets compensarion
      - If a landowner makes a representation that another person can have an interest in the land and the
        representee, without being requested to do so acts in detrimental reliance, it is unconscionable to depart from the representation and the representee has a claim in equity (right to approach equity court to seek
        Inwards v Baker [1965]
      - If a landlord encourages an owner of land to expend money under an expectation that he will be able to
        remain on the land, this raises an equity in the licenseeàentitled him to stay. Dillwyn v Llewelyn (1862
        
        This is known as a licence coupled with an equity
    - - A representation as to future conduct that isn’t a promise for an interest in land, can, if itinduces reasonable detrimental reliance, provide a remedy against the representor but only as a
        efence. This meant that it could only apply when there was a pre-existing legal relationship
        between the parties and that the representation was to not enforce the strict rights.Je Maintiendrai v Quaglia (1980)
      - There is no logical distinction between a change in the legal relationship affected by a promise
        that extinguishes rights and a promise that creates one. Equity is both a shield and a sword Promissory estoppel applies to representations of promises conferring rights, not just promise that extinguish rights. If a representor induces the representee to do acts in detrimental reliance, it is unconscionable to depart from the representation and the representee has a claim Walton Stores v Maher (1988
  - - - Common Law Estoppel or representation of fact occurs where the Relying Party acted upon an assumption of an existing fact. e.g. Namely, the Representor induced the Relying Party to believe he has signed a contract.
      - e.g The effect of Common Law Estoppel is to prevent the Representor from denying his representation when in court. The contractual rights and obligations will be determined as if the Representor’s representation was true.
        
        This means that the Representor will be ‘estopped’ from denying he has signed the contract. For all intents and purposes, the contract will be deemed as signed, and therefore enforceable.
- - - - Purpose of estoppel not simply to rectify the detriment. its is also the assumption which his or her representation or conduct induced to the other party.
- - - - what has the other party given in return?
      - what would be the relief ?
- - - - creation of an assumption of a promise to be performed satisfies the assumption element
        
        W v G.
        
        Austotel v Franklins Selfserve,
    - - Express inducement is not required. Implied (suggested by directly not expressed) promises to complete a contract will constitute inducement
        
        Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher
      - Preferred approach is to ask whether the Relying Party was induced to adopt an assumption as to the future conduct of the Representor, rather than whether an equivocal promise or representation
        
        Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd[15]
      - In Olsson v Dyson, Mr Dyson’s widow was unsuccessful in claiming the benefit of a debt – the court found Mr Dyson had not encouraged or induced her to act in a manner prejudicial to her interests.
    - - Reliance loss - loss suffered because of reliance on the assumption when the Representor acts inconsistently with it.
        
        Detriment does not have to be financial. However it needs to be affirmatively demonstrated.
        
        (Commonwealth v Verwayen)
        
        Detriment suffered must be material, significant, or substantial
        
        Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd v Helicopter Charter Pty Ltd:
      - Relying Party’s circumstances
        
        Whether an action is detrimental depends on the Relying Party’s circumstance. A promissory Estoppel could only arise if the Relying Party has altered its position on the faith of the representation, and would suffer a detriment if the Representor would be allowed to assert his original rights.
        Sometimes the Relying Party’s financial situation may play a role in whether they suffered a detriment or not. Detriment will be assessed at the time that the Representor seeks to go back on his representation.
        
        (Je Maintiendrai Pty Ltd v Quaglia)
    - - [22]The scope of Estoppel is also limited by the mechanism of unconscionableness. The requirement of unconscionable conduct is concerned with whether the Representor deserves blame.
        Silovi Pty Ltd v Barbaro
      - test
        
        examination of the role of the Representor in inducing the adoption of an assumption, his knowledge of this assumption being adopted, and his intention to induce reliance.
  - - - Departure or threatened departure
        
        Traditionally, it has been held that estoppel will only arise if the Representor departs or threatens to depart from the assumption. It is this departure which constitutes the unconscionable conduct.
        
        However, there has been case law supporting the view that estoppel can come into effect even before the departure, once an assumption has been induced and reasonably been relied upon (to detriment).
    - - Reasonableness of the action taken
        
        This depends on the nature of the action taken by the Relying party, in the context of the relationship between the parties and the other circumstances of the case.
      - Reasonableness of the assumption
        
        Depends on the nature of the assumption, the conduct of the Representor that induced the assumption, and the relationship between the parties.
        
        Murphy v Overton Investments Pty Ltd.
      - The Reasonableness inquiry
        
        The type of conduct engaged in by the Representor
        
        The nature of the assumption itself
        
        Identity of the Representor
        
        The context in which the assumption is induced
        
        Whether the Representor encourages or knows of the reliance
        
        Nature of the relationship between the parties.